4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #88

[wendy44]

In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out, because if it is let in as things stand, where it is a mystery as to how the Kohberger family was found and no proof it was done accurately, at least some members of the jury are not going to accept that evidence and it will damage the State's case big time. If the Prosecution breaks the jury's trust, by refusing to provide the granular detail, their case will go down and that means an almost guaranteed not guilty verdict. There is no excuse for not providing detailed documentation. This is a straightforward process and I believe the FBI can still replicate what they did and and give that documentation to the prosecution. If not, strategically, I'd advise the prosecutor to completely ditch the DNA evidence because we all know Anne Taylor is 100% going there and it will cause the jury not to trust the prosecution and FBI results. That is a huge torpedo in the prosecution case because if the jury questions that, they are going to start questioning everything and then the prosecution case goes down the drain.

The defense has already said they will not be calling the IGG experts at trial. They're not questioning the end results. They know the end results are accurate. They know the dna is a match. They're trying to get it thrown out on a technicality.

If either side brings in the IGG at trial, the prosecution can easily create the family tree that shows how all the matches lead to BK. There is no way in the world the prosecution is going to ditch the dna for fear the defense will question the IGG process.

 

[m00c0w]

Have you read the PCA? I mean really critically read it and considered what it says? I admit, I thought it was really strong at first. But then I went back and really paid close attention the the alleged "facts" in it and I was shocked because there is literally no evidence in the PCA that proves BK committed these murders. It's all supposition and guessing on the part of the writer. It's really quite appalling. The white car disappears in Pullman only to magically reappear in a residential neighborhood on the far side of Moscow from Pullman, begging the question of if it is even the same car? At first there was a white Nissan Altima, then, there were 22,000 2011-2013 white Elantra's that LE were searching through, then they changed the date range to include 2015 - an estimated total of 33,000 Elantras. The cellphone pings that look so damning at first ONLY mean his car was within 25 miles of the cellphone tower that 1122 King Rd uses. The night of the murders, his cellphone goes off in Pullman and comes on hours later near Genesee. As far as I can tell, the vehicle may have been down there during the murders. The description of the man in black has him at 5'10" when it is obvious BK is considerably taller than that. The only evidence they really have is his DNA on a snap on the sheath. No other DNA of his in the rooms where the murders were committed. There is literally nothing in the PCA proves he was even in Moscow that night, much less that he is a murderer. And if it is touch DNA on the sheath, he doesn't even have to have ever touched the sheath to get his DNA on it. It could have been, he worked out at the gym and some guy used a machine or weights BK used and transferred the DNA onto the sheath or BK shook hands with someone or used the same doorknob or touchpad at the store. Now I REALLY hope that the prosecution has more evidence than what was in the PCA and I'm waiting until the trial, if there is one, to render judgement. But I'm really quite concerned about this entire situation.

It’s fortunate, then, that a probable cause affidavit only establishes probable cause. They’re not looking to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a probable cause affidavit. They’re looking to show… probable cause. Which they obviously did, as the warrant was signed and he was arrested pursuant to the warrant.

MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

She could spend a few years and a lot of money - and still get nothing, if in fact, the FBI has no records (only personal communication) about this matter. The records produced could be identical to what has already been given.

But if AT's plan is to make this trial process last as long as possible, it would behoove her to go ahead and follow the route outlined by the Boston Bar Association (there are other guides, even longer than that one) .

IMO.

[snipped by me]

Agree. This has been stated by the prosecution more than once. #546

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

That Boston Bar piece you linked to is referring to civil cases, quoting from that piece's title: "Getting Uncle Sam To Talk: Obtaining Potentially Important Evidence from the FBI For Use in Civil Proceedings".

In criminal cases the Toughy rules still apply to an extent but the US Attorney considering the request has to give weight to the right of the defendant in a fair trial ("that the administration of justice requires disclosure", §1-6.440, DOJ Personnel as Witnesses: 1-6.000 - DOJ Personnel As Witnesses).

So it wouldn't be that complex IMO, they make the request, either get the green light on the basis of "the administration of justice requiring disclosure" from the US Attorney, or if no green light file a motion in Latah County for a subpoena (which wouldn't be invalid as long as they follow the first step).

Maybe I misunderstood but I read @10ofRods post as speaking to who bears the burden here. I agree with 10 that it is not the state's responsibility to do the defense's work for them. They may be ordered to but the judge will have to order it. Nothing stopping the defense from doing their own work here imo. They just don't seem to want to.

ETA: and as posted above I agree that they will likely get nothing more than what they already have for the reasons stated in the filing linked in #546
All jmo

 

[katydid23]

Have you read the PCA? I mean really critically read it and considered what it says? I admit, I thought it was really strong at first. But then I went back and really paid close attention the the alleged "facts" in it and I was shocked because there is literally no evidence in the PCA that proves BK committed these murders.

Ok, I think you are over thinking what a PCA needs to show. It is not meant to " prove BK committed these murders. "

"...they do not need to have enough evidence to prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is what a trial is for. At the bottom of the page I will link the requirements for a PCA. *

It's all supposition and guessing on the part of the writer. It's really quite appalling. The white car disappears in Pullman only to magically reappear in a residential neighborhood on the far side of Moscow from Pullman, begging the question of if it is even the same car? At first there was a white Nissan Altima, then, there were 22,000 2011-2013 white Elantra's that LE were searching through, then they changed the date range to include 2015 - an estimated total of 33,000 Elantras.

I think this will be cleared up during the trial. There are other things which will likely prove this was BK's vehicle---like the fact his cell phone traveled along right with it for many hours. And he may have been seen at a market, getting out of this car the next day, on cctv, possibly.

They obviously narrowed it down considerably from 33k.

The cellphone pings that look so damning at first ONLY mean his car was within 25 miles of the cellphone tower that 1122 King Rd uses. The night of the murders, his cellphone goes off in Pullman and comes on hours later near Genesee. As far as I can tell, the vehicle may have been down there during the murders.

I do believe they will have much more accurate cell data by the time of the trial. I've seen that in many cases--the PCA has the basic ping tower maps but the trial experts have more exact details placing locations very closely.

The description of the man in black has him at 5'10" when it is obvious BK is considerably taller than that.

All that description does is NOT reject him as a possibility. A witness in the middle of the night is not going to describe the height within inches.

The only evidence they really have is his DNA on a snap on the sheath.

That^^^ is pretty damning evidence. Especially when one can show he was admittedly driving around alone, in the crime scene area, all night, with his phone off during the time of the murders.

If it was random DNA, having no connection, I'd expect the DNA donor would be in another location, or be with friends all night, or have some kind of alibi. Plenty of times unknown DNA is found at a crime scene and it was found to be totally unrelated.

So this particular DNA, being found where it was located, right under a dead girl, is very damning.

No other DNA of his in the rooms where the murders were committed.

If he was gloved and masked, and very careful, then that is not a big surprise.

There is literally nothing in the PCA proves he was even in Moscow that night, much less that he is a murderer. And if it is touch DNA on the sheath, he doesn't even have to have ever touched the sheath to get his DNA on it. It could have been, he worked out at the gym and some guy used a machine or weights BK used and transferred the DNA onto the sheath or BK shook hands with someone or used the same doorknob or touchpad at the store.

OK, so BK went to a gym somewhere and left his DNA, and the actual killer used the same machine, then snapped his knife sheath closed before going to murder 4 kids. And then after this random coincidence, BK's DNA is the ONLY DNA left at the scene.

So not only is that extremely unlucky for poor BK, but on that same night, in that same place, BK just coincidentally drives from his home in Pullman , around 2 am, to Moscow area, and drives around aimlessly---unable to remember exactly where he went---only that he drove around for hours very near the crime scene, with his cell off during the crucial time.

What are the odds that BK not only accidentally left touch DNA randomly somewhere that ended up being the ONLY DNA left on the bed with 2 dead girls---but he also puts himself there alone, for no apparent reason, on that same night, during the murders?

Now I REALLY hope that the prosecution has more evidence than what was in the PCA

Do you really hope so?

and I'm waiting until the trial, if there is one, to render judgement. But I'm really quite concerned about this entire situation.

* Probable Cause and Probable Cause Hearings in Criminal Law Cases

Probable Cause and Probable Cause Hearings in Criminal Law Cases​

To make a valid arrest or get an arrest warrant from a judge, the police must have probable cause. This is a different standard from the reasonable suspicion standard required to make an initial stop. Determining how much evidence is necessary to justify a finding of probable cause depends on the specific facts of the situation.

A police officer needs more evidence than the level required for the reasonable suspicion standard, but they do not need to have enough evidence to prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No percentage has been assigned to probable cause. Some judges seem to believe that the standard is less demanding than the preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil cases. Since that standard involves a greater than 50 percent probability, probable cause may not be what most people would consider “probable.”

Determining Probable Cause​

Objective
A police officer must have more than a subjective hunch to make an arrest or get an arrest warrant. They need to have objective evidence that indicates the suspect’s responsibility for the crime. Even if a police officer believes that they have probable cause, a judge may not necessarily agree. They will review the information in the affidavit for the warrant and make a final decision. You should be aware that being guilty of a crime and having probable cause for an arrest are two different things. Probable cause may exist even if the defendant is not guilty.

 

[sassyblue]

Bless you, @katydid23.

 

[m00c0w]

Ok, I think you are over thinking what a PCA needs to show. It is not meant to " prove BK committed these murders. "

"...they do not need to have enough evidence to prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

That is what a trial is for. At the bottom of the page I will link the requirements for a PCA. *



I think this will be cleared up during the trial. There are other things which will likely prove this was BK's vehicle---like the fact his cell phone traveled along right with it for many hours. And he may have been seen at a market, getting out of this car the next day, on cctv, possibly.

They obviously narrowed it down considerably from 33k.


I do believe they will have much more accurate cell data by the time of the trial. I've seen that in many cases--the PCA has the basic ping tower maps but the trial experts have more exact details placing locations very closely.


All that description does is NOT reject him as a possibility. A witness in the middle of the night is not going to describe the height within inches.


That^^^ is pretty damning evidence. Especially when one can show he was admittedly driving around alone, in the crime scene area, all night, with his phone off during the time of the murders.

If it was random DNA, having no connection, I'd expect the DNA donor would be in another location, or be with friends all night, or have some kind of alibi. Plenty of times unknown DNA is found at a crime scene and it was found to be totally unrelated.

So this particular DNA, being found where it was located, right under a dead girl, is very damning.


If he was gloved and masked, and very careful, then that is not a big surprise.



OK, so BK went to a gym somewhere and left his DNA, and the actual killer used the same machine, then snapped his knife sheath closed before going to murder 4 kids. And then after this random coincidence, BK's DNA is the ONLY DNA left at the scene.

So not only is that extremely unlucky for poor BK, but on that same night, in that same place, BK just coincidentally drives from his home in Pullman , around 2 am, to Moscow area, and drives around aimlessly---unable to remember exactly where he went---only that he drove around for hours very near the crime scene, with his cell off during the crucial time.

What are the odds that BK not only accidentally left touch DNA randomly somewhere that ended up being the ONLY DNA left on the bed with 2 dead girls---but he also puts himself there alone, for no apparent reason, on that same night, during the murders?


Do you really hope so?


* Probable Cause and Probable Cause Hearings in Criminal Law Cases

Probable Cause and Probable Cause Hearings in Criminal Law Cases​

To make a valid arrest or get an arrest warrant from a judge, the police must have probable cause. This is a different standard from the reasonable suspicion standard required to make an initial stop. Determining how much evidence is necessary to justify a finding of probable cause depends on the specific facts of the situation.

A police officer needs more evidence than the level required for the reasonable suspicion standard, but they do not need to have enough evidence to prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No percentage has been assigned to probable cause. Some judges seem to believe that the standard is less demanding than the preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil cases. Since that standard involves a greater than 50 percent probability, probable cause may not be what most people would consider “probable.”

Determining Probable Cause​

Objective
A police officer must have more than a subjective hunch to make an arrest or get an arrest warrant. They need to have objective evidence that indicates the suspect’s responsibility for the crime. Even if a police officer believes that they have probable cause, a judge may not necessarily agree. They will review the information in the affidavit for the warrant and make a final decision. You should be aware that being guilty of a crime and having probable cause for an arrest are two different things. Probable cause may exist even if the defendant is not guilty.

I’m also not sure how true the assertion is that it was only touch DNA. The defense is the only one that has claimed this. It seems like the state was able to develop quite a genetic profile, something I wouldn’t expect from a tiny amount of touch DNA. If it was something beyond touch DNA, like BK’s blood actually being present, that would be pretty substantial.

MOO

 

[kittythehare]

It’s fortunate, then, that a probable cause affidavit only establishes probable cause. They’re not looking to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a probable cause affidavit. They’re looking to show… probable cause. Which they obviously did, as the warrant was signed and he was arrested pursuant to the warrant.

MOO

Yep.
That's about the size of it.

 

[Chloegirl]

Duplicate

 

[Chloegirl]

Maybe I misunderstood but I read @10ofRods post as speaking to who bears the burden here. I agree with 10 that it is not the state's responsibility to do the defense's work for them. They may be ordered to but the judge will have to order it. Nothing stopping the defense from doing their own work here imo. They just don't seem to want to.

ETA: and as posted above I agree that they will likely get nothing more than what they already have for the reasons stated in the filing linked in #546
All jmo

Philosophically I would agree that you should show your work under maybe different circumstances. Maybe as an investigative force you're not supposed to let criminals know how you figure this stuff out so that they can't beat the system. IDK.

I think that sounds fair even though everyone would benefit from seeing their work. If I had a loved one murdered, I would want them to figure this out, but not divulge their tactics to make the community less stable/safe. These kind of conversations bring up slippery slope thinking. And I do think several pieces of information dovetailed to become what typically happens in investigations. Too many times it was BK again. Bingo we have our guy. JMOO

 

[jepop]

Documenting how they got to a solution is basic to professionalism in any field. I know and have worked extensively with thousands of mathematicians and they ALWAYS document how they got from point A to point B. DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial. The FBI is not above being questioned by today's consumers - in this case a jury. If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism. Many members of the jury will expect that as a minimum requirement. This is no longer the 1950's where people don't question someone because they are allegedly an authority. Nowadays, consumers are savvier and they want to know exactly how did they get from point A to point B. In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out, because if it is let in as things stand, where it is a mystery as to how the Kohberger family was found and no proof it was done accurately, at least some members of the jury are not going to accept that evidence and it will damage the State's case big time. If the Prosecution breaks the jury's trust, by refusing to provide the granular detail, their case will go down and that means an almost guaranteed not guilty verdict. There is no excuse for not providing detailed documentation. This is a straightforward process and I believe the FBI can still replicate what they did and and give that documentation to the prosecution. If not, strategically, I'd advise the prosecutor to completely ditch the DNA evidence because we all know Anne Taylor is 100% going there and it will cause the jury not to trust the prosecution and FBI results. That is a huge torpedo in the prosecution case because if the jury questions that, they are going to start questioning everything and then the prosecution case goes down the drain.

First, the prosecution has a full case to take to trial without the IGG investigative tip and IGG process coming into evidence. I'm not going to link the State's motion for protective order and reply in support of protective order again, where the details are provided. I think your concerns as stated towards the end of your post can be allayed. The prosecution by their own account have a good case without the IGG being brought in as one of many investigative tools that were used. Imo, the prosecution is seeking to protect innocent people identified through the IGG process with good cause. Imo, they've set out documentation about why IGG needs to be protected and why on the balance of things, that is the correct decision. Imo the state provides a solid argument as to why IGG does not fall under the relevant section of ICRs as discoverable. Moo - but see state documents for protective order.

Second, for some reason, Imo, you may be continuing to conflate IGG with the reports related to the dna that are already in discovery and available to the defense. Namely and in my own words from reading the motions in this case, Reports that:
a)show exactly how the dna was extracted from the snap button;
b) show exactly how it was STR profiled producing what's known as as a "forensic profile/sample";
c) show exactly how it was put into CODIS and no match identified;
d)show exactly how the forensic dna (suspect) sample/profile was kept safe in the Idaho State lab;
e)show exactly the test performed by a private lab to produce an snp profile from the "forensic profile";
f) show exactly how the forensic sample was still safely stored in the Idaho State lab;
g) show exactly how the forensic sample was tested against a legally gathered trash sample (from the trash of BK's family home) on 27th Dec in the Idaho State Lab;
h) show exactly how that test showed that the donor of the trash sample was 99.9998%(approx from memory ) likely to be the father of the donor of the suspect forensic sample on the sheath stored safely in the Idaho State Lab;
i) show exactly how a buccal swab was taken from BK upon his arrest, and exactly how the dna from that buccal swap was a direct match (in the range of octillions of probabilty) with the forensic suspect sample safely stored in the Idaho State lab. Moo

Imo, court docs make clear that the defense has reports related to all of the above in the discovery. That is the only legitimate area to question the legitimacy of the dna, Imo. The fbi has nothing, zero to do with the legitimacy of the dna sample extracted from the Sheath. Moo

So in relation to some concerns you raise in your post. For eg

"DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial."

Imo it has been documented. The Jury can perceive it as accurate. The defense is free to attack or not any of the lab reports in discovery that are relavant to the dna. Moo

"If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism."

The fbi have nothing to do with "doing the dna right" Imo and as shown above.

"In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out,"

Again, the IGG, used as a tool by the fbi, resulted in a tip which as it turned out enhanced a lead LE already had. But once again, the accuracy of the dna forensic sample is not the issue Imo. Your assertion - "or the dna must be thrown out", is Imo, your opinion only. To me, I just cannot make sense of it.

There is Imo, no connection between the accuracy/legitmacy of the dna as forensic sample and the IGG process.

EBM spelling

 

[jepop]

Not to mention the state has readily said they will share whatever the court mandates they share, and requested an in-camera hearing if that is the case so the court can see exactly what the materials are and make any further decisions as warranted. If they were trying to be as sneaky and shady as some imply, they would 1) not have revealed IGG to begin with and 2) be a lot more unwilling to share the data.

JMO

Yes, my memory from the state protective order motion and reply docs is if necessary, state will be more than happy to hold in camera hearing to demonstrate IGG process produced nothing that could be deemed exculpatory to the defendant. Moo

 

[jepop]

The defense has already said they will not be calling the IGG experts at trial. They're not questioning the end results. They know the end results are accurate. They know the dna is a match. They're trying to get it thrown out on a technicality.

If either side brings in the IGG at trial, the prosecution can easily create the family tree that shows how all the matches lead to BK. There is no way in the world the prosecution is going to ditch the dna for fear the defense will question the IGG process.

RBBM

"There is no way in the world the prosecution is going to ditch the dna for fear the defense will question the IGG process."

Exactly. Imoo there is ongoing conflation between the accuracy of dna sample extracted from the knife sheath (all reports in discovery) and the IGG process. I'd forgotten the defense stated that they don't intend to call IGG experts at trial (during the Aug 18th hearing).

 

[katydid23]

Documenting how they got to a solution is basic to professionalism in any field. I know and have worked extensively with thousands of mathematicians and they ALWAYS document how they got from point A to point B. DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial.

You are comparing math problems with building a family tree using DNA. They are not the same thing. There are not provable steps, like you have in mathematical problem solving, when searching a GG database. It is free form, using hunches, and guess work, unlike proving a mathematical equation. [see below*]

The FBI is not above being questioned by today's consumers - in this case a jury. If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism.

I think you are still missing the point. There is not a defined, linear sequence, no paper trail that can be copied, to explain how they used the GG database. They already gave what was able to be copied. But the entire process is not what you are imagining it is. It is not like a mathematical or scientific equation.

Many members of the jury will expect that as a minimum requirement. This is no longer the 1950's where people don't question someone because they are allegedly an authority.

So is it coming down to a question of authority now? Are you seeing this as the FBI being authoritarians? That is not what I am taking from the state's answer to the motion.

Nowadays, consumers are savvier and they want to know exactly how did they get from point A to point B. In the case of DNA

But there is no exact paper trail that can show that. It is a person perusing the portal on the app---and seeing someone who might fit the criteria, and then going to another database immediately to search them, to see location and look at obits, and their social media, to see what trail can be followed there.

And then at some point, BACK to the GG app and continue from another spot, and so on and so on. THERE IS NO LINEAR PAPER TRAIL.

in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out, because if it is let in as things stand, where it is a mystery as to how the Kohberger family was found and no proof it was done accurately, at least some members of the jury are not going to accept that evidence and it will damage the State's case big time.

Did anyone question how the Golden State Killer was found? Are they questioning the hundreds of previously unknown remains that have recently been cleared using IGG? Or all of the adoptees finding their birth families?

Is it really that mysterious how IGG works? I think the prosecution will be able to put well spoken experts on the stand to explain it fully.

If the Prosecution breaks the jury's trust, by refusing to provide the granular detail, their case will go down and that means an almost guaranteed not guilty verdict.

I think you are blowing it out of proportion. I don't think they will lose the jurors trust.

There is no excuse for not providing detailed documentation. This is a straightforward process

NO, it is not a straight forward process---that is the problem. It is a complex, non-linear, multi-faceted process, in which the researcher is jumping from platform to platform, following tiny clues, in order to get a gut feeling about which turn to take in each road.

'and I believe the FBI can still replicate what they did and and give that documentation to the prosecution. If not, strategically, I'd advise the prosecutor to completely ditch the DNA evidence because we all know Anne Taylor is 100% going there and it will cause the jury not to trust the prosecution and FBI results.

The FBI can absolutely explain and present the data they do have, if the judge requires that. But the state does not plan to use any data from the IGG process, so we will see.

AT is not going to be able to suppress this evidence because the IGG process was not used to compare BK's DNA to the knife sheath's DNA.

That is a huge torpedo in the prosecution case because if the jury questions that, they are going to start questioning everything and then the prosecution case goes down the drain.

I doubt that. AT is desperate because that DNA at the crime scene is so damning. But IGG is not a huge torpedo in this case, as much as the defense is trying to say so.

The excerpt below shows that it is not like solving a math problem. It is not a prescribed step by step logical sequence. More than one person would likely be doing a lot of different things, searching different databases, not just GG, all at the same time.

Four misconceptions about investigative genetic genealogy

Abstract. Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves u

academic.oup.com

*
The basic information used in IGG falls into two categories: genetic relative information, which is generated by a genetic genealogy database based on its internal comparison of SNP profiles in the database; and genealogical and other often publicly accessible information, such as information from census records and obituaries, that describes family relationships. Law enforcement integrates these two categories of information to develop family trees and then identifies and investigates high-likelihood suspects within those trees.

The forensic SNP profile is uploaded to one or more genetic genealogy databases, each of which generates a list of genetic relatives and the basis for their identification—specifically, the amount and length of shared DNA blocks.

At this point, investigators or genealogists working on behalf of the agency search for genealogical and other information about the genetic relatives identified by the databases to develop a family tree that includes the source of the forensic sample.

Investigators then identify individuals within the tree who are high-likelihood suspects because, among other things, they align with the known demographics or activities of the offender, and those suspects are investigated using standard techniques.

 

[katydid23]

First, the prosecution has a full case to take to trial without the IGG investigative tip and IGG process coming into evidence. I'm not going to link the State's motion for protective order and reply in support of protective order again, where the details are provided. I think your concerns as stated towards the end of your post can be allayed. The prosecution by their own account have a good case without the IGG being brought in as one of many investigative tools that were used. Imo, the prosecution is seeking to protect innocent people identified through the IGG process with good cause. Imo, they've set out documentation about why IGG needs to be protected and why on the balance of things, that is the correct decision. Imo the state provides a solid argument as to why IGG does not fall under the relevant section of ICRs as discoverable. Moo - but see state documents for protective order.

Second, for some reason, Imo, you may be continuing to conflate IGG with the reports related to the dna that are already in discovery and available to the defense. Namely and in my own words from reading the motions in this case, Reports that:
a)show exactly how the dna was extracted from the snap button;
b) show exactly how it was STR profiled producing what's known as as a "forensic profile/sample";
c) show exactly how it was put into CODIS and no match identified;
d)show exactly how the forensic dna (suspect) sample/profile was kept safe in the Idaho State lab;
e)show exactly the test performed by a private lab to produce an snp profile from the "forensic profile";
f) show exactly how the forensic sample was still safely stored in the Idaho State lab;
g) show exactly how the forensic sample was tested against a legally gathered trash sample (from the trash of BK's family home) on 27th Dec in the Idaho State Lab;
h) show exactly how that test showed that the donor of the trash sample was 99.9998%(approx from memory ) likely to be the father of the donor of the suspect forensic sample on the sheath stored safely in the Idaho State Lab;
i) show exactly how a buccal swab was taken from BK upon his arrest, and exactly how the dna from that buccal swap was a direct match (in the range of octillions of probabilty) with the forensic suspect sample safely stored in the Idaho State lab. Moo

Imo, court docs make clear that the defense has reports related to all of the above in the discovery. That is the only legitimate area to question the legitimacy of the dna, Imo. The fbi has nothing, zero to do with the legitimacy of the dna sample extracted from the Sheath. Moo

So in relation to some concerns you raise in your post. For eg

"DNA is no different, it must be documented to be perceived as accurate, especially when used for a trial."

Imo it has been documented. The Jury can perceive it as accurate. The defense is free to attack or not any of the lab reports in discovery that are relavant to the dna. Moo

"If the FBI did the DNA right, then they have nothing to hide and providing documentation of everything that was done should be fundamental and basic to professionalism."

The fbi have nothing to do with "doing the dna right" Imo and as shown above.

"In the case of DNA in this case, we already know that the defense is going to raise reasonable doubt about how BK was identified, so jurors are going to require this proof or the DNA must be thrown out,"

Again, the IGG, used as a tool by the fbi, resulted in a tip which as it turned out enhanced a lead LE already had. But once again, the accuracy of the dna forensic sample is not the issue Imo. Your assertion - "or the dna must be thrown out", is Imo, your opinion only. To me, I just cannot make sense of it.

There is Imo, no connection between the accuracy/legitmacy of the dna as forensic sample and the IGG process.

EBM spelling

THIS^^^^^....thank you.

 

[NextSprint]

Philosophically I would agree that you should show your work under maybe different circumstances. Maybe as an investigative force you're not supposed to let criminals know how you figure this stuff out so that they can't beat the system. IDK.

I think that sounds fair even though everyone would benefit from seeing their work. If I had a loved one murdered, I would want them to figure this out, but not divulge their tactics to make the community less stable/safe. These kind of conversations bring up slippery slope thinking. And I do think several pieces of information dovetailed to become what typically happens in investigations. Too many times it was BK again. Bingo we have our guy. JMOO

I've seen first-hand that agencies in the US and the UK most definitely go to lengths to hide their methods over the long term. I've had for example cases when representing someone just trying to get a visa, that the state ends up having information they couldn't have possibly got from methods known to the public.

There is an argument to be had about whether that's a good idea: "Security through obscurity", i.e. if it's hidden then nobody will know, only works as long as something remains hidden. It's a tricky balance, and when it scrapes close to someone's constitutional rights - or in the UK human rights - is when those agencies are in peril with the methods they've kept hidden. IMO.

 

[NextSprint]

[snipped by me for focus]

But there is no exact paper trail that can show that.

I understand why people might want to believe that but it isn't true.

The Department of Justice's rules on use of IGG uses the term "shall document" six times, and that's just the publicly available version (not an officer's handbook/departmental rules).

This sentence stood out to me:

"All FGG profiles, account information, and data shall be retained by the investigative agency for potential use during prosecution and subsequent judicial proceedings."

Those are the rules that FBI agents doing this work would have to follow. It's not a couple of agents huddled round a laptop with a Othram portal open and no paper-trail being made.

https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2019/09/24/finaldojinterimpolicyonfgg.pdf

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here are some very similar cases where the IGG was contested by Defense in cases, and was denied by the Court.

Very good reading if you have time or an interest:

1. Minnesota - Minnesota v. Carbo, St. Louis County District Court, Sixth Judicial District, Court File No. 69HI-CR-20-549. Carbo Omnibus Order.PDF

2. Colorado - People v. Phillips, Eleventh Judicial District, Case No. 2021CR15. Phillips Order Denying Motion.PDF

3. California - People v. Waller, Motion for Discovery Order, Superior Court of California county of Sacramento, No. 18FE018342. Waller Motion for discovery order.PDF

4. California - In Re: Michael Green, Superior Court of the State of California, County of El Dorado, Case No. PDL20200007, Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Discovery, 10/5/2020.

5. State v. Bortree, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Logan No. 8-20-67, Aug 23, 2021 -IGG merely provided law enforcement leads therefore testimony related to IGG was properly allowed. State v. Bortree

6. McCurley v. Texas, Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth, No. 02-21-00122-CR, August 31, 2022. Failure to suppress IGG evidence was not error. McCurley v. Texas

7. Iowa v. Burns, Iowa Supreme Court, March 31, 2023 after IGG analysis pointed to Burns as a suspect collecting his DNA from a straw he abandoned did not violate the 4th Amendment. State v. Burns

8. People v. Lepere, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division,
Decided May 16, 2023, the combination of IGG analysis and a follow up investigation was sufficient for a valid search warrant for Lepere’s trash can which was on his property. People v. Lepere

https://www.uniteddataconnect.com/investigative-genetic-genealogy-cases

 

[Boxer]

So, in other words, there is a process for requesting information from the FBI. It certainly sounds like something AT would know as the head of the public defenders office. I did see where the FBI's procedure manuals are available under FOIA. If this process is something they have documented in a manual, I think think AT could easily request it that way.

Based on what has been said in public, regardless of opinions expressed here, it sounds like the prosecution does not have those details of what the FBI did. The question I have now is whether the defense can force the prosecution to request something they don't already have and call it discovery just because it might exist somewhere and they want it. I'm guessing the answer to that is no, they cannot.

Because as a layperson I'm beginning to think that AT decided the path of least resistance in obtaining something she hopes might, just maybe could be helpful to their case was by trying to convince the court to force the prosecution to request them rather than requesting them herself. MOOooo

Agree. Strategies for a guilty client means as many delay of games, challenges to every inch of ground, trick plays and constitutional questions as possible.
He left his DNA at the crime scene and she intends to bury that under a pleistocene strata's worth of tangential material.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree. Strategies for a guilty client means as many delay of games, challenges to every inch of ground, trick plays and constitutional questions as possible.
He left his DNA at the crime scene and she intends to bury that under a pleistocene strata's worth of tangential material.

Yes, AT will pull out all the stops, that's all they can do because he is guilty. At least BK can't claim ineffectiveness of council, which is ultimately good for the case.

In the end this Defendant is going to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and either sentenced to the DP or LWOP. Of that, I have no doubt.

MOO